/vr/ - Retro Games

>>1692065

>Dork souls is hard cliche

>>1692065

I don't like how it has two difficulties:

>hard
>easy

Also they NEVER fixed the inventory system. And now you have to carry more stuff to burn zombonies.

Also really wish it had full 3D and RE4 style over the shoulder aiming. It would have sold much more if it did.

>>1692072
Oh yeah, forgot to mention I'm playing on hard mode.

The inventory system is really quite annoying. Why does a small key take up as much space as a shotgun. Muh!

Also, the saving system is quite tough. I mean: no typewriter ribbon, gotta stop playing: bad luck for you.

Over the shoulder aiming would be a dream but, as the settings are pre-rendered, I don't soo any way how that would work without significantly lowering the image quality.

>>1692072
No way, it would have been shit and looked like shit if it was 3rd person, full 3D like RE4.

Also not retro

>>1692091
How is a sixteen year old game not retro?

>>1692072
>Also really wish it had full 3D and RE4 style over the shoulder aiming.
Full pleb.

>>1692093
a complete remake from 2002 is not a game from 16 years ago.

>>1692093
>April 22, 2002
>16 years old

Aside from that, the cutoff is 1999, so the GC isn't retro yet. The Dreamcast is the only console that makes the cut from that generation, right now.

>>1692101
>a complete remake from 2002 is not a game from 16 years ago.

So the GC's not a retro console, right?

>>1692101
>>1692091

Remakes are /vr/ sperglord.

>>1692106
>Aside from that, the cutoff is 1999, so the GC isn't retro yet.

Well, if you say so...

I say it's bullshit. Where do you pull this rules from?

>>1692096

My ideal RE game would be third person with static background, which switch to third person aiming.

>>1692113

Remakes of /vr/ games are /vr/, he's dumb.

>>1692117
>My ideal RE game would be third person with static background, which switch to third person aiming.

Third person with static background is what the game is now. What you think of would have the character to be immobile.

>Remakes of /vr/ games are /vr/, he's dumb.

Thank you!

>>1692113

>>1392415
The rules for /vr/, right at the top of the front page.

>>1692072
>I don't like how it has two difficulties
There is an easy, normal, hard mode it's just you have to beat the game to access them.

>>1692125
>Third person with static background is what the game is now. What you think of would have the character to be immobile.

No, I'm saying what alternate version of the game I would prefer. If I were given money to remake RE1 I mean.

>>1692129

You have to beat the game to access normal mode?

>>1692131
Hard mode actually. Hiking is easy and mountain climbing is normal.

>>1692126
>The rules for /vr/, right at the top of the front page.

Yeah, okay. I admit my error.

Still, the game's not you usual remake, like, 10 years later. It came out around '98 and was adapted to the GC in 2002, so it's more an enhanced version than a remake. Anyway, I don't see how it falls so far from the topic of retro games that it would be worth contesting its appearance in /vr/, apart from being a CG game and GC not being a retro platform, according to the rules, which I accept allthough anyone would probably agree that GC's sitting on the fence.

To me, a platform becomes retro when people enter my room and exclaim: What's this? You still have a XXX. And it works?

>>1692130
>No, I'm saying what alternate version of the game I would prefer. If I were given money to remake RE1 I mean.

What I know is: there's a DSversion but I have no idea if it uses pre-rendered backgrounds or dynamically rendered ones.

Speaking of RE, I have a had a hard time playing RE2 on my PC due to fucking TANK CONTROLS! DAMN YOU!

>>1692141
>It came out around '98

Remember when /vr/ was new and people actually talked about games instead of arguing if something is retro by arbitrary 4chan standards?

>not retro
>can't even see the rules even though they're at the top of the first page
>complains the game isn't more like RE4
>other people complain TANK CONTROLS

Just burn this thread already.

>>1692183
You obviously weren't there because everybody arguded about the dreamcast every single day.

Which didn't prevent people from talking about retro games, in other threads.

>>1692171
yeah, looked it up. '96

you autistic dumbass

>>1692183
>Remember when /vr/ was new and people actually talked about games instead of arguing if something is retro by arbitrary 4chan standards?

Sounds like a dream to me. /vr/'s really full of know-it-better snobs. Oooh, that game was released two years too late to be retro. Aaah, it wasn't '98, it was '96.

Damn stamp collectors ad pea counters.

>>1692197
If you're going to endorse sidestepping the parameters of what is set out as retro from the outset, we may as well not even use retro, at all. Let's just become /v/.

>>1692117
didn't they do this with the DS port? A lot of people forget about that one

>>1692204
Yeah, I think that's what they did. In consequece, it looks much worse but probably plays a lot better.

>>1692201
I get your point, though I still wonder what makes a console or game retro or not, if being more than one generation off from current one and more than 10 years old isn't a criterium.